flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Márton Balassi <balassi.mar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Structure the Flink Open Source Development
Date Thu, 12 May 2016 08:46:45 GMT
+1 for the proposal
@ggevay: I do think that it refers to you. :)

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Gábor Gévay <ggab90@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> There are at least three Gábors in the Flink community,  :) so
> assuming that the Gábor in the list of maintainers of the DataSet API
> is referring to me, I'll be happy to do it. :)
>
> Best,
> Gábor G.
>
>
>
> 2016-05-10 11:24 GMT+02:00 Stephan Ewen <sewen@apache.org>:
> > Hi everyone!
> >
> > We propose to establish some lightweight structures in the Flink open
> > source community and development process,
> > to help us better handle the increased interest in Flink (mailing list
> and
> > pull requests), while not overwhelming the
> > committers, and giving users and contributors a good experience.
> >
> > This proposal is triggered by the observation that we are reaching the
> > limits of where the current community can support
> > users and guide new contributors. The below proposal is based on
> > observations and ideas from Till, Robert, and me.
> >
> > ========
> > Goals
> > ========
> >
> > We try to achieve the following
> >
> >   - Pull requests get handled in a timely fashion
> >   - New contributors are better integrated into the community
> >   - The community feels empowered on the mailing list.
> >     But questions that need the attention of someone that has deep
> > knowledge of a certain part of Flink get their attention.
> >   - At the same time, the committers that are knowledgeable about many
> core
> > parts do not get completely overwhelmed.
> >   - We don't overlook threads that report critical issues.
> >   - We always have a pretty good overview of what the status of certain
> > parts of the system are.
> >       -> What are often encountered known issues
> >       -> What are the most frequently requested features
> >
> >
> > ========
> > Problems
> > ========
> >
> > Looking into the process, there are two big issues:
> >
> > (1) Up to now, we have been relying on the fact that everything just
> > "organizes itself", driven by best effort. That assumes
> > that everyone feels equally responsible for every part, question, and
> > contribution. At the current state, this is impossible
> > to maintain, it overwhelms the committers and contributors.
> >
> > Example: Pull requests are picked up by whoever wants to pick them up.
> Pull
> > requests that are a lot of work, have little
> > chance of getting in, or relate to less active components are sometimes
> not
> > picked up. When contributors are pretty
> > loaded already, it may happen that no one eventually feels responsible to
> > pick up a pull request, and it falls through the cracks.
> >
> > (2) There is no good overview of what are known shortcomings, efforts,
> and
> > requested features for different parts of the system.
> > This information exists in various peoples' heads, but is not easily
> > accessible for new people. The Flink JIRA is not well
> > maintained, it is not easy to draw insights from that.
> >
> >
> > ===========
> > The Proposal
> > ===========
> >
> > Since we are building a parallel system, the natural solution seems to
> be:
> > partition the workload ;-)
> >
> > We propose to define a set of components for Flink. Each component is
> > maintained or tracked by one or more
> > people - let's call them maintainers. It is important to note that we
> don't
> > suggest the maintainers as an authoritative role, but
> > simply as committers or contributors that visibly step up for a certain
> > component, and mainly track and drive the efforts
> > pertaining to that component.
> >
> > It is also important to realize that we do not want to suggest that
> people
> > get less involved with certain parts and components, because
> > they are not the maintainers. We simply want to make sure that each pull
> > request or question or contribution has in the end
> > one person (or a small set of people) responsible for catching and
> tracking
> > it, if it was not worked on by the pro-active
> > community.
> >
> > For some components, having multiple maintainers will be helpful. In that
> > case, one maintainer should be the "chair" or "lead"
> > and make sure that no issue of that component gets lost between the
> > multiple maintainers.
> >
> >
> > A maintainers' role is:
> > -----------------------------
> >
> >   - Have an overview of which of the open pull requests relate to their
> > component
> >   - Drive the pull requests relating to the component to resolution
> >       => Moderate the decision whether the feature should be merged
> >       => Make sure the pull request gets a shepherd.
> >            In many cases, the maintainers would shepherd themselves.
> >       => In case the shepherd becomes inactive, the maintainers need to
> > find a new shepherd.
> >
> >   - Have an overview of what are the known issues of their component
> >   - Have an overview of what are the frequently requested features of
> their
> > component
> >
> >   - Have an overview of which contributors are doing very good work in
> > their component,
> >     would be candidates for committers, and should be mentored towards
> that.
> >
> >   - Resolve email threads that have been brought to their attention,
> > because deeper
> >     component knowledge is required for that thread.
> >
> > A maintainers' role is NOT:
> > ----------------------------------
> >
> >   - Review all pull requests of that component
> >   - Answer every mail with questions about that component
> >   - Fix all bugs and implement all features of that components
> >
> >
> > We imagine the following way that the community and the maintainers
> > interact:
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >   - Pull requests should be tagged by component. Since we cannot add
> labels
> > at this point, we need
> >     to rely on the following:
> >      => The pull request opener should name the pull request like
> > "[FLINK-XXX] [component] Title"
> >      => Components can be (re) tagged by adding special comments in the
> > pull request ("==> component client")
> >      => With some luck, GitHub and Apache Infra will allow us to use
> labels
> > at some point
> >
> >   - When pull requests are associated with a component, the maintainers
> > will manage them
> >     (decision whether to add, find shepherd, catch dropped pull requests)
> >
> >   - We assume that maintainers frequently reach out to other community
> > members and ask them if they want
> >     to shepherd a pull request.
> >
> >   - On the mailing list, everyone should feel equally empowered to answer
> > and discuss.
> >     If at some point in the discussion, some deep technical knowledge
> about
> > a component is required,
> >     the maintainer(s) should be drawn into the discussion.
> >     Because the Mailing List infrastructure has no support to tag
> threads,
> > here are some simple workarounds:
> >
> >     => One possibility is to put the maintainers' mail addresses on cc
> for
> > the thread, so they get the mail
> >           not just via l the mailing list
> >     => Another way would be to post something like "+maintainer runtime"
> in
> > the thread and the "runtime"
> >          maintainers would have a filter/alert on these keywords in their
> > mail program.
> >
> >   - We assume that maintainers will reach out to community members that
> are
> > very active and helpful in
> >     a component, and will ask them if they want to be added as
> maintainers.
> >     That will make it visible that those people are experts for that part
> > of Flink.
> >
> >
> > ======================================
> > Maintainers: Committers and Contributors
> > ======================================
> >
> > It helps if maintainers are committers (since we want them to resolve
> pull
> > requests which often involves
> > merging them).
> >
> > Components with multiple maintainers can easily have non-committer
> > contributors in addition to committer
> > contributors.
> >
> >
> > ======
> > JIRA
> > ======
> >
> > Ideally, JIRA can be used to get an overview of what are the known issues
> > of each component, and what are
> > common feature requests. Unfortunately, the Flink JIRA is quite
> unorganized
> > right now.
> >
> > A natural followup effort of this proposal would be to define in JIRA the
> > same components as we defined here,
> > and have the maintainers keep JIRA meaningful for that particular
> > component. That would allow us to
> > easily generate some tables out of JIRA (like top known issues per
> > component, most requested features)
> > post them on the dev list once in a while as a "state of the union"
> report.
> >
> > Initial assignment of issues to components should be made by those people
> > opening the issue. The maintainer
> > of that tagged component needs to change the tag, if the component was
> > classified incorrectly.
> >
> >
> > ======================================
> > Initial Components and Maintainers Suggestion
> > ======================================
> >
> > Below is a suggestion of how to define components for Flink. One goal of
> > the division was to make it
> > obvious for the majority of questions and contributions to which
> component
> > they would relate. Otherwise,
> > if many contributions had fuzzy component associations, we would again
> not
> > solve the issue of having clear
> > responsibilities for who would track the progress and resolution.
> >
> > We also looked at each component and wrote the names of some people who
> we
> > thought were natural
> > experts for the components, and thus natural candidates for maintainers.
> >
> > **These names are only a starting point for discussion.**
> >
> > Once agreed upon, the components and names of maintainers should be kept
> in
> > the wiki and updated as
> > components change and people step up or down.
> >
> >
> > *DataSet API* (*Fabian, Greg, Gabor*)
> >   - Incuding Hadoop compat. parts
> >
> > *DataStream API* (*Aljoscha, Max, Stephan*)
> >
> > *Runtime*
> >   - Distributed Coordination (JobManager/TaskManager, Akka)  (*Till*)
> >   - Local Runtime (Memory Management, State Backends, Tasks/Operators) (
> > *Stephan*)
> >   - Network (*Ufuk*)
> >
> > *Client/Optimizer* (*Fabian*)
> >
> > *Type system / Type extractor* (Timo)
> >
> > *Cluster Management* (Yarn, Mesos, Docker, ...) (*Max, Robert*)
> >
> > *Libraries*
> >   - Gelly (*Vasia, Greg*)
> >   - ML (*Till, Theo*)
> >   - CEP (*Till*)
> >   - Python (*Chesnay*)
> >
> > *Table API & SQL* (*Fabian, Vasia, Timo, Chengxiang*)
> >
> > *Streaming Connectors* (*Robert*, *Aljoscha*)
> >
> > *Batch Connectors and Input/Output Formats* (*Chesnay*)
> >
> > *Storm Compatibility Layer* (*Mathias*)
> >
> > *Scala shell* (*Till*)
> >
> > *Startup Shell Scripts* (Ufuk)
> >
> > *Flink Build System, Maven Files* (*Robert*)
> >
> > *Documentation* (Ufuk)
> >
> >
> > Please let us know what you think about this proposal.
> > Happy discussing!
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Stephan
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message